New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 2) expressed its displeasure and slammed the lawyer representing the petitioners over averments in a petition making “scurrilous and unfounded allegations” against judges in the conferment of senior designations to lawyers and asked the lawyer to amend the petition.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea seeking quashing of the recent conferment of senior designations to about 70 lawyers at the Delhi High Court, raising questions on the conferment of senior advocate designation to these lawyers.
What did the petitioner say?
The averment in the petition read, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a judge sitting or retired, of the high court or Supreme Court, who has his offspring, brother, sister or nephew who has crossed the age of 40 remaining to be a plebeian lawyer.”
How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been designated as senior counsel, bench asked
“How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been designated as senior counsel?” the bench asked lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, who appeared for the petitioners, referring to the averment in the petition.
Nedumpara told the bench that a chart has been given to support his submissions and argued that the bar was afraid of judges.
“Mr Nedumpara, this is a court of law. Not a boat club or Azad Maidan in Bombay (Mumbai) to make speeches. Make legal arguments when you address a court of law. Not the arguments only for the purpose of gallery,” said Justice Gavai and added, “From perusal of averments (in the petition), we find various scurrilous, unfounded allegations made against judges.”
Bench asked petitioners to amend petition
The bench told Nedumpara that it was willing to grant him the liberty to amend the petition.
“If you do not amend the petition, we may take such steps as we find necessary,” the bench said.
The bench further said that it could have proceeded today itself, however, Nedumpara, who has drafted and sworn it, needs sometime to reflect upon the averments made in the petition and consult with other petitioners on the future course of action.
The bench has granted four weeks’ time to amend the petition.
